Swedish 'Art' Outrage

A formal protest would have been lost in the back channels of European diplomacy. So he chose to scream.

On January 16, Israel's ambassador to Sweden, Zvi Mazel, attended a Stockholm art show linked to an international conference on preventing genocide. Mazel was shocked to encounter there a large exhibit glorifying the Palestinian terrorist who murdered 21 Israelis at Haifa's Maxim restaurant in October.

Dubbed "Snow White and the Madness of Truth," the exhibit showed a tiny sailboat floating on a pool of red water. Attached to the boat was a smiling photo of the female bomber, Hanadi Jaradat. In protest, Mazel pulled the plug on three spotlights illuminating the exhibit, and knocked one light fixture into the red pool.

While one could debate if Mazel's act was appropriate, it is essential to recognize that this story runs far deeper than one art exhibit. Associated Press provides important background context to the story:

There has long been debate over where criticism of Israel ends and anti-Semitism begins. The current round touched a deeper chord, because many Israelis feel outsiders often accept the Palestinians' use of suicide bombings against civilians.

This exhibit was the culmination of dozens of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish events in Sweden. When you don't protest it gets worse and worse. It had to be stopped somehow, even by deviating from the behavior of the buttoned-down diplomat.

The Israeli government supports Mazel's protest, and the Jerusalem Post had this to say:

As for "diplomacy," Mazel was communicating his point in the only way possible. A formal protest would merely have been "duly registered," filtered and lost in the back channels of European diplomacy. So he chose to scream. But screaming was the only option Europe now gives Israel.

Dutch television has actual film of Mazel, calmly walking around the exhibit, unplugging the spotlights, and pushing one of the (unplugged) lights into the water.

MEDIA 'WHITEWASH'

Media coverage largely downplayed the exhibit's clear glorification of genocide -- a grave irony, given the theme of the conference. Media reports instead suggested that the exhibit's meaning is open to broad interpretation, or that it merely laments all Mideast bloodshed.

Absent from nearly all reports was the poetic text accompanying the exhibit, submitted by the artists, which juxtaposes the 'beauty' of the red pool of blood upon the moral 'Snow-whiteness' of the terrorist:

For the June 12 deaths of her brother, and her cousin... seemingly innocent with universal non-violent character... Weeping bitterly, she added: 'If our nation cannot realize its dream and the goals of the victims, and live in freedom and dignity, then let the whole world be erased'... Run away, then, you poor child... and the red looked beautiful upon the white.

Here are three examples of the media's selective omission:

BBC wrote: "Its Israeli-born creator rejected the charge [of condoning violence], saying the work had a message of openness and conciliation... 'I'm absolutely opposed to suicide bombers', he added."

The New York Times News Service reports that one of the artists explained: "I wanted to show how incomprehensible it is that a mother of two -- who is a lawyer no less -- can do such a thing," she said, apparently confusing the Haifa bombing with an attack last week by another Palestinian woman.

The (UK) Observer spun the story 180-degrees, presenting Mazel -- not the Palestinian! -- as the killer: Peaceful Swedes were nearly killed when "an ambassador erupted in violent protest... [Mazel] ripped out electrical wires, grabbed a spotlight and hurled it into a fountain, causing it to short circuit and become a potential death trap."

Did your local paper's coverage of Mazel's act of protest fail to note the artists' accompanying text, which casts a mass murderer as a 'Snow-white' victim? If so, write a letter to the editor, questioning the omission of the artist's literal 'whitewash' of Palestinian terror.

About the Author

HonestReporting, with 140,000 members, is the largest organization fighting media bias in the Middle East conflict. In 2006, HonestReporting launched Media Central, a Jerusalem center providing support services for foreign journalists in Israel and the region.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 19

(19)
Reuven B.,
December 31, 2004 12:00 AM

Why do yo uaccuse him of destoying the "ART"? he just took off the spotlights. He did nothing to deface the actual painting. I feel saddened that this work was even displayed at all. it is not a piece of art, rather another smear on the jews and israel. And thank you anne-marie, for showing your support for israel

(18)
Nathan Brooks,
February 23, 2004 12:00 AM

How wrong Theo is

Theo I must fist say that no everyone doesnt know that suicide bomings are wrong or there wouldnt be people in this world 1. committing the acts 2. people praising them for their actions and 3. people teaching children that blowing themselves up is one of the greatest things they could do with their lives.

Your claim on terrorism, Terrorism is not on both sides. Terrorism: deliberate and systematic assault on civilians to inspire fear for political ends.

The Israel "DEFENSE" Force making strategic attacks to kill those that perpetrate horrible crimes against humanity is not the same as a palestinian targeting children and blowing themselves up on a crowded street.

People who purposely attack innocents are not interested in freedom!

(17)
David Green,
January 29, 2004 12:00 AM

This article is distorted and should not have been published on an eminent Jewish website.

There is no clear evidence that the exhibit glorifies genocide. The author deliberately reports only selective content from the exhibit. He also omits that the artist is Israeli. There is little doubt that there are problems with the exhibit, but that is more a problem of the art world than a statement about anti-Semitism.

The New York Times News Service reports that one of the artists explained: "I wanted to show how incomprehensible it is that a mother of two -- who is a lawyer no less -- can do such a thing," she said, apparently confusing the Haifa bombing with an attack last week by another Palestinian woman.

From this evidence, one could just as easily conclude that the exhibit is a protest against suicide bombing.

As for 'Snow White,' the very name is an insult to Israel and the victims of terrorism, as one thinks of a pure, innocent girl. It was a case of bad judgment by the museum, and not necessarily anti-Semitism.

(16)
Theo,
January 28, 2004 12:00 AM

Comment on Ambassador's Reactions

Hi,

I am just writing to say that what the Ambassador did was completely wrong. How can a person of such stature vandalize a piece of art from the country that is hosting him?

Your article is completely biased. Why is the word art in quotation marks. It is art. The artist is not condoning suicide bombers by portraying what he did. Every person with a right mind knows suicide bombing is wrong.

But then again so is trashing down houses of indigenous people and shooting innocent women and children. Palestinians have no central intelligence, as opposed to Israel. So why is that Israeli's end up killing innocent civilians?

Terrorism is on both sides.

(15)
Anders Carlson,
January 26, 2004 12:00 AM

To humiliate, scoff at Israel and the Jewish people is fully alloed, but if you say or writing something negative about Palestina, the Plaestinian people or Islam, than you are an racist. My solidarity with Israel and the Jews are now stronger than never. The ambassador Zvi Mazel have my appreciation for what he did in Stockholm when he spoiled the exhibition which glorifyed a suicide bomber.
Solidarity with the holy land Israel.

(14)
B. Goldman,
January 26, 2004 12:00 AM

Sadava missed the point or has other motives.

Just the simple statement of the .."red looking beautiful"..signifying the justification for destroying other human beings is just disgusting, let alone misguided. Who are the "innocents"? Think about it. Stanley, you've got your own agenda. Let's be honest here.

(13)
Stan Sadava,
January 25, 2004 12:00 AM

misinterpret

Sorry, I don't follow. I really appreciate seeing the entire poem. It talks about what would be going through her mind...and also speaks to the "murder" of innocents. I don't see this as justifying anything, simply reporting on reality, a painful and ugly reality. Trashing a public art exhibit by one of our diplomats is pretty.. undiplomatic.

(12)
B.L.A.,
January 25, 2004 12:00 AM

Good Grief.

People, it's not art. It's a prop. Like 90% of the junk floats around in the 'art' world. Mr. Mazel just rearrganged it. (Trust me folks, I'm a proffessional fineartist, I know what I'm talking about.)

Now as regards the real issue at hand (i.e., "There has long been debate over where criticism of Israel ends and anti-Semitism begins"), here are some comments from an (almost) universally respected spokesperson for human rights. They may be well known to some, but it couldn't hurt to hear them again:
Martin Luther King on Zionism

"... You declare, my friend; that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist'. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of G-d's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- this is G-d's own truth."

"Anti-Semitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently anti-Semitic, and ever will be so."

"Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered our L-rd. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them."

"The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested -- DEMANDED -- the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country."

"How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfillment of G-d's promise, that His people should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land. This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less."

"And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is anti-Semitism."

"The anti-Semite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the anti-Semite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!"

"My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate anti-Semitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled -- as others have been -- into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to those heartfelt principles that you and I share. Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews -- make no mistake about it."

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review XLVII (August 1967), pg. 76 Reprinted
in M.L. King Jr., "This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

(11)
amj2001,
January 25, 2004 12:00 AM

Zvi Mazel

My opinion is that he had better stayed away, because he did put only oil on the flames...or in other words it ain't no use to bring water to the sea (of hate)

(10)
Ann-Mari,
January 25, 2004 12:00 AM

?

I am a swedish, christian woman. I only want to say, that we are many here in Sweden who understands Zvi Mazels action. You always have to live in fear of suicide-bombers. To see this woman on the picture floating in a pool of blood, must have been very upsetting for Your ambassador.
Israel is in my prayers every day.

(9)
jennifer schmidt,
January 25, 2004 12:00 AM

Biased and nuts!

But don't forget the Swedes, who will never make the headlines, who have menorahs in their windows, and who pray for Israel daily! There is always hope!

(8)
yehoshua,
January 25, 2004 12:00 AM

Hatred or Art

When a Jew drew or painted actual pictures of "life" during Shoah,the artist expressed his/her truth as well as emotional feelings of an event. When a non-Jew drews or paints a picture of the "justification" of Shoah ,he or she is expressing his truth and emotional feelings of an event. One from the horrors of hate and the other of the joy of hate. What is the lesson taught from each picture of Art will mankind accept? That is what should be illustrated. The viewers of such "artworks" should be aware that Art is in the eye and heart of the beholder.

When Christians were angered by the "artwork" exhibited in a museum in New York a short time ago which showed the Madonna covered with elephant dung,it was defended as "art".The same place showed the Holcaust in a light of "humor and excitement" which discussed most decent people also. Yet it was also considered "art" which must never be questioned. Just exhibited freely. So we see the progression of "hate art" now depicting racism and discrimination as true art .The future will determine what the results of such "art" will have on peoples.

An old mensch is also saddened.

Yehoshua

(7)
Cristian Korn - Brazil,
January 24, 2004 12:00 AM

Fanatism ??? - no, RIGHTEOUS !

In Mr. "A.L." opinion there was only "a misinterpretation of the art" which "did not glorify a suicide bombers" .... and then he speaks about the "paradoxical climate we all live here" -
well, for me it is paradoxal to call the government of P.M. Ariel Sharon "right wing" or fanatic" ... but WHAT REALLY MATTERS IS THE FACT WE ARE ASSISTING A THAT RAPID EMERGENCE OF FANATIC ANTISEMITISM & NEO-NAZISM(not just "dormant tendencies in Europe" as visitor Mr. Shmuel Solol said, but a real new dangerous antisemitism around the world, unfortunately down here in South America too ... )
When I first read about Mr. Tsvi Mazal's action I was both, proud about his righteous act of "chutzpah" - but also feard about the reaction of the "free press" ... which is the "THE REAL SNAKE" ...
In honor of all the victims of terror, I do not want to discuss the "freedom of art" ( art ? ) because there is a border-line of freedom. Never an act of terror shall be glorified but I want to say thanks to Mr. Tsvi Mazal - and I am sure that there are many people who stand behind him! He did the right thing not because he's belonging to a "right wing" government, but because he had the choice to do so.

(6)
A.L.,
January 21, 2004 12:00 AM

Fanatism...

In my opinion, there was a clear misinterpretation of the art work. It did not glorify a suicide bombers - but what has happened on that Friday night was a reflection of the whole paradoxical climate we all live here. Not everybody here is content with the situation and the right wing Sharon goverment. Fanatics opposing fanatic suicide bombers - nothing good can come out of it. And if there was a left wing goverment - would Mr.Ambassador just pass by quietly?

(5)
noah simon,
January 21, 2004 12:00 AM

The ambasodor to Israel is the Artist, The exhibition was propoganda

The ambasodor to Israel is the Artist, The exhibition was propoganda. He expressed himself elegantly and clearly. Zvi Mazel will be rewarded by all creative minds. Art does not live in a bubble. It can change... like Bride Stripped Bare of her Bachelors by Marcel Duchamp who pioneered conceptual art. Shame on the european elite!

(4)
Anonymous,
January 21, 2004 12:00 AM

Jew vs. Jew

As much as we point the finger about the worldwide ant-semitism we face, we must recognize that some of the biggest haters of our people are within our own community. The creator of this so-called artpiece is a Jew and who at one point lived in Israel. If we truly live by the command that we are all responsible for eachother, how can it be that another Jew can have so much hate for another?
As it is necessary to combat such displays of hate, we must also think of why someone who once lived amongst other Jews and in land of Israel could now take such an opposing stand.
As we may focus on placing blame on the Swedish government. We must realize that the creator and drive behind the creation was someone who was once amongst ourselves.
As a nation we are only as strong as our weakest link.

(3)
Shmuel Sokol,
January 21, 2004 12:00 AM

Holy War, Holy Art

Is there an inviolable sanctity to art that transcends our mundane existence and becomes totally removed from the political realities that shape our lives? Do the normal rules governing freedom of expression expand to include statements so provocative that they would be considered in the worst taste in any other context? To go back to my first question, is art above and divorced from politics?

Deputy Knesset Speaker Mohammed Barakeh seems to think so. The most recent example of a growing trend in worldwide Anti-Semitism now centers on the actions of Israeli Ambassador to Sweden Tzvi Mazel, who attempted to disrupt the presentation of a new work equating the death of terrorist Hanadi Jaradat with the twenty one innocent Jews that he brutally
murdered. MK Barakeh, upon hearing of the action taken by Ambassador Mazel, tried to arouse the indignation of the Israeli art community and called the position taken by the Ambassador, and by extension the Israeli government, for backing him, "unacceptable". He stated that it was an attack upon art.

It boggles the mind that the moment in which an opinion is publicized through the medium of art, it becomes sacrosanct, irregardless of the actual content being conveyed. Of course, the defense of human life and the protection of the ideals of our common humanity must transcend art. Were this exhibit to be one in which Meir Kahane were glorified, our dear Mr. Barakeh would be up in arms yelling about incitement. There is a double standard at work here that has nothing to do with the artistic expression of the human experience. People are sacred, art, when it contravenes this basic principle of our philosophy, is not.

The fact is, the piece in question attempts to dehumanize the victims of terror by comparing them to a killer who has by virtue of his acts, given up his own humanity. The loss is not the same. The value of an innocent life taken in violence is incalculably more valuable than that of the monster who took it before its time.

Art is not to be divorced from politics and a statement of hatred and violence does not gain credibility or acceptability by being conveyed through "art". Furthermore, by allowing such a work to be displayed, Sweden has violated the terms of a compact that it had made with Israel, not to put such Goebbelsesque imagery on display.

However, that is not the most disturbing aspect of this incident. It is already commonly known that there is a rapid emergence of dormant Anti-Semitic tendencies in Europe. What is truly disturbing is that while Israel battles such glorification of Jewish murder abroad, it still does not do so at home, by destroying the very propaganda machine that breeds terrorists in the first place. Furthermore, by allowing Arabs in the Knesset who are outspokenly pro-Incitement, as evidenced by MK Barakeh's
words, we allow a viper in our midst. One day this snake shall strike, and we shall all be the worse off for it. For now, it is not bad "enough" for us to realize the danger, but then again the Jew is, always has been and will continue to be a political ostrich.

(2)
Micol,
January 21, 2004 12:00 AM

the art was not destroyed

as can clearly be seen in the video, the "piece of art" was not destroyed. all Mazel did was turn the lights off (the spotlights aren't a part of the exhibit, they are just there to make the outdoor "masterpiece" visible at night time) and then he threw one of the spotlilghts into the pool. the pool being much much bigger than the spotlight (yes, that's how big the pool of Israeli blod was), just taking the spotlight out is enough to have the "piece of art" back in its original state.
meanwhile, Mazel's Art was destroyed! Yes, he was doing a very theatrical rendition of "over my dead body!!" and was not allowed to express himself fully.

(1)
HB,
January 20, 2004 12:00 AM

Is destroying Art the answer?

While the Jerusalem Post has a definite point--Mazel's written protest would probably be filed away & forgotten--just destroying or changing art works is irresponsible. Remember when Picasso's "Guernica" was spray-painted over by a disturbed fellow? Back in 1975 some folks actually came to this man's defense claiming he was "completing" the work.
What Mazel should have done is raised a VOCAL scream---calling all the media amd pointing out what is wrong with the work, or calling on other artists to do an artistic work of reply.

This year during Chanukah I will be on a wilderness survival trip, and it will be very difficult to properly celebrate the holiday. I certainty won't be able to bring along a Menorah.

So if I am going to celebrate only one day of Chanukah, which is the most significant?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

If a person can only celebrate one day of Chanukah, he should celebrate the first day.

This is similar to a case where a person is in prison, and the authorities agree to permit him to go to synagogue one day. The law is that he should go at the first opportunity, and not wait for a more important day like the High Holidays.

The reason is because one should not allow the opportunity of a mitzvah to pass. Moreover, it is quite conceivable that circumstances will later change and allow for additional observance. Therefore, we do not let the first chance pass. (Sources: Code of Jewish Law OC 90, Mishnah Berurah 28.)

As an important aside, Chanukah candles must be lit in (or at the entrance to) a home rather than out of doors. Thus, you should not light in actual "wilderness," but only after you've pitched your tent for the night.

There may be another reason why the first night is the one to focus on. Chanukah is celebrated for eight days to commemorate the one-day supply of oil that miraculously burned for eight days. But if you think about it, since there was enough oil to burn naturally for one night, nothing miraculous happened on that first night! So why shouldn't Chanukah be just seven days?!

There are many wonderful answers given to this question, highlighting the special aspect of the first day. Here are a few:

1) True, the miracle of the oil did not begin until the second day, and lasted for only seven days. But the Sages designated the first day of Chanukah in commemoration of the miraculous military victory.

2) Having returned to the Temple and found it in shambles, the Jews had no logical reason to think they would find any pure oil. The fact that the Maccabees didn't give up hope, and then actually found any pure oil at all, is in itself a miracle.

3) The Sages chose Chanukah, a festival that revolves around oil's ability to burn, as the time to teach the fundamental truth that even so-called "natural" events take place only because God wants them to.

The Talmudic Sage Rabbi Chanina Ben Dosa expressed this truth in explaining a miracle that occurred in his own home. Once, his daughter realized that she had lit the Shabbos candles with vinegar instead of oil. Rabbi Chanina calmed her, saying, "Why are you concerned! The One Who commanded oil to burn, can also command vinegar to burn!" The Talmud goes on to say that those Shabbos lights burned bright for many hours (Taanit 25a).

To drive this truth home, the Sages decreed that Chanukah be observed for eight days: The last seven to commemorate the miracle of the Menorah, and the first to remind us that even the “normal” burning of oil is only in obedience to God's wish.

In closing, I'm not sure what's stopping you from celebrating more than one day? At a minimum, you can light one candle sometime during the evening, and that fulfills the mitzvah of Chanukah - no “official Menorah” necessary. With so much joy to be had, why limit yourself to one night only?!

In 165 BCE, the Maccabees defeated the Greek army and rededicated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem. Finding only one jar of pure oil, they lit the Menorah, which miraculously burned for eight days. Also on this day -- 1,100 years earlier -- Moses and the Jewish people completed construction of the Tabernacle, the portable sanctuary that accompanied them during 40 years of wandering in the desert. The Tabernacle was not dedicated, however, for another three months; tradition says that the day of Kislev 25 was then "compensated" centuries later -- when the miracle of Chanukah occurred and the Temple was rededicated. Today, Jews around the world light a Chanukah menorah, to commemorate the miracle of the oil, and its message that continues to illuminate our lives today.

A person who utilizes suffering to arouse himself in spiritual matters will find consolation. He will recognize that even though the suffering was difficult for him, it nevertheless helped him for eternity.

When you see yourself growing spiritually through your suffering, you will even be able to feel joy because of that suffering.

They established these eight days of Chanukah to give thanks and praise to Your great Name(Siddur).

Jewish history is replete with miracles that transcend the miracle of the Menorah. Why is the latter so prominently celebrated while the others are relegated to relative obscurity?

Perhaps the reason is that most other miracles were Divinely initiated; i.e. God intervened to suspend the laws of nature in order to save His people from calamity.

The miracle of the Menorah was something different. Having defeated the Seleucid Greek invaders, the triumphant Jews entered the Sanctuary. There they found that they could light the Menorah for only one day, due to a lack of undefiled oil. Further, they had no chance of replenishing the supply for eight days. They did light the Menorah anyway, reasoning that it was best to do what was within their ability to do and to postpone worrying about the next day until such worry was appropriate. This decision elicited a Divine response and the Menorah stayed lit for that day and for seven more.

This miracle was thus initiated by the Jews themselves, and the incident was set down as a teaching for all future generations: concentrate your efforts on what you can do, and do it! Leave the rest to God.

While even our best and most sincere efforts do not necessarily bring about miracles, the teaching is nevertheless valid. Even the likelihood of failure in the future should not discourage us from any constructive action that we can take now.

Today I shall...

focus my attention on what it is that I can do now, and do it to the best of my ability.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...